When you measure the AA on a rod you are supposed to deflect it 1/3 of the length. So on a 84" rod would mean deflecting it 28"? Would handle length play a role in it? If you secured the rod by the grip that would mean the rod will only flex along the length of rod in front of the grip. If the rod was built with an extra long handle doesn't that effectively shorten the rod? If you shorten a blank that gives it a slower action which should result in a lower AA. But by deflecting the rod the full length divided by 3 and not accounting for the handle are you not deflecting it more the 1/3 which would give you a higher AA on the test?

It seems to me that measuring the AA for a rod or blank is in accurate because it depends on how much of the blank has been secured to the table (or wherever else). Is there a standard for how much of the blank should be secured? I think the CSS is great as it helps remove a lot of the mystery involved when selecting a rod blank. I'm just trying to understand it. I appreciate any help you guys can give me in clearing this up in my head. Thanks.

Patrick Rutledge

Definition of action - where the rod initially flexes. No matter how long you make the handle, that point will not change.

If you want results that are relative across the board, support the rod at a point which is roughly 10% of it's finished length. No farther. Use a deflection distance which is 1/3rd of its overall length. That result is relative and comparative across the board.

If you wish to take the reading with a different support point, or at a different length, you can certainly do that (remember the Big Picture?). Use whatever deflection distance you feel is appropriate. But that result will not be something that you can compare to other blanks or rods. It will be unique to your particular rod. How that would be helpful to you I have no idea, but you can certainly do it if you wish.

The thing you have to remember, is that you're already doing this with the current system - Fast, Medium, Slow, etc. You have a catalog rating, you build the rod and the effect is the same. If you have had no problem doing that, you should have no problem with the CCS. The CCS AA component is no different than the current system, other than that it offers much greater resolution.

And remember, no matter how long you make the handle, the place where the rod initially flexes will not change. You can't make a slow action rod out of a fast action rod unless you make it shorter. Handle length makes no difference in that regard. This is the crux of the action issue.

.............

Patrick, I think I can put your mind at ease. Take out any catalog from any company that makes blanks AND rods. Note the power and action ratings given for their BARE BLANKS and the ratings given for the FINISHED RODS they build on those blanks. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. If the manufacturer of the blanks and rods do not change those ratings depending on handle length, why should you?

Unless you are building something wildly different than what most fishermen use I cannot see where this makes any difference. The companies that make the blanks and the rods do not feel that it does, so I would take their lead and do as they do.

As soon as you change the deflection and the support point then YOUR figures are only relative to other rods built on the SAME blank and built EXACTLY as yours and with teh same points of measurements This would not give any valuable information IMHO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 06:07PM by Ken Finch.

Thanks,

The 10% of the length I is the standard I was looking for. I must have missed that.

Tom, you said that action is where the rod initially flexes and that it doesn't change with how long the handle is. But it will change if you shorten the blank from the butt. So what is the difference between cutting 6" off the butt or making my rear grip 6" longer then 'normal'. If you are only using one hand on the rod to cast and fight fish, I would think there would be no difference other then 6" that will get in the way or caught on clothing.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to learn and understand. I appreciate you answering all of my questions that must seem out in left field. Thank you again, I do appreciate it.

Patrick Rutledge

If you are building your handle longer than you can use, what good is that? If you're building your handle such that 6 inches isn't in play - isn't usable, why not just cut the rod off at that point? We're getting into scenarios here that aren't really practical.

Ken has made a great point - action and power are based on overall length. This isn't something that was decided by the Common Cents System. The system you have used for the last several decades has made no allowance for handle length. Have you questioned that system or wondered about it previously? Why have these issues only come up since the advent of the CCS? How did you go about rating your rods previously?

The bottom line is, what do you want this information for? You can run the Big Picture on any segment of the rod you wish, but if you want to be able to make an across the board comparison, you need to stick with the standard constant.

Think about this for a minute and I think you'll see my point - if you take a blank that is 84 inches in length, and you cut it, how long will it be? Answer that and I'll give you a final answer as to how to look at all this.

................

My question about handle length came form the idea of fitting the handle to the person fishing it. People on this board have mention numerous times about different ways to fit a rod to an individual. So I was originally thinking that you secured the entire handle for CSS testing which would be in accurate as everyone has different length handles. The standard of 10% obviously takes care of that. That was my original question asked in a round about way I guess. I should have asked for the standard not assumed one didn't exist. I took the complicated way to getting my answer.

The second question was generated from your first answer. And again despite my confusing way of asking you still managed to give me an answer. If I make my handle longer by 6" then my rod effectively 6" shorter, and like you said that is not realistic as why would you make such a non-realistic handle.

Thank you for your help and patience. I'm not an english major and I know that. Thank you

Patrick Rutledge

The inherent properties of the rod are what they are. The deflection constant and location of the forward support have been spelled out and provided you do not change them they will give relative results against those numbers listed by others using the same constants. This is the same procedure used by all the blank and rod manufacturers for last 100 years. They do not adjust power and action measurements between their blanks and finished rods.

If you want measurements of some other portion of your rod, run the Big Picture measurements and you’ll have those for whatever portion of the rod you wish. The CCS will do whatever you request of it in that regard.

If you have built a rod that has a handle so long that the last 6 inches are completely unusable, I’d suggest taking a hacksaw and cutting that portion off (you won’t miss it if you weren’t able to utilize it anyway - so just whack it off) and then run the CCS measurements on the new, 6 inch shorter rod. That will give you the power and action figures for that rod.

If you want to know the overall length of a board, you would run the tape measure from one end to the other end of the board and you will have the overall length. If you want to know how long only a portion of the board is, you would run the tape only on that length. Use the CCS the same way.


..............